4 ms·
In hindsight, your question is far more stupid than his "idea". It's called the principle of insufficient reason; we aren't to suppose an a priori difference am
by Chukwu 17y ago
In hindsight, your question is far more stupid than his "idea". It's called the principle of insufficient reason; we aren't to suppose an a priori difference amongst type without proof - so the burden of proof is on the supposer. That you would ask me to explain why his idea is illogical, without first establishing that his claim is based in logic is justification enough for labeling your question stupid.
- johnnybgoode 17y agoHaven't you simply assumed uniformity? By the way, you called it an "idea" first, not me. And it's a little disappointing for someone who's new here to be resorting to the use of insulting labels so quickly.
- Chukwu 17y agoYes, uniformity is assumed. Difference must be proven. Think for a moment - how could logic work the other way? Given a categorical set of entities, if we could assume prima facie that there were differences in an arbitrary subset of said set, our categorical heading would be meaningless! For you have derived a contradiction before you even started; Set of A properties, subset of set have not A property, wtf... This is basic. I would hope that if someone offers up an explanation for some event, that they would have taken the time to be sure that their explanation is rational. If they haven't, I am well within my bounds to call that explanation what it is - stupid and illogical - regardless of how long I have had an account on this forum. And in that regard, how can you be sure I haven't been an avid reader of this forum since its inception? And what does it matter...? As to the "" around idea; that was meant to convey the notion that this isn't HIS idea, nor is it a new one. You can google eugenics for an eye-opening history lesson on his "idea".